The problem is that in this cross-sectional study, there is no way to determine the direction of the observed relationship.

The unfortunate part of the story is that California taxpayers funded this proposal to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. What a waste of money. They could have saved the money because the researchers had already drawn their conclusions. Why waste the money on actually conducting research when the conclusions of that research have already been drawn, and disseminated!

My argument was echoed in a to the article by Steven Pinkerton, a public health researcher from the Medical College of Wisconsin, who pointed out that: "the major tobacco companies demonstrated 100% compliance with the law by eliminating all terms specified in the FSPTCA [Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act]--the use of colour terms to designate sub-brands is not regulated by the FSPTCA."

The rest of the story is that the study actually did not find that 11.9% of the former smokers were addicted to nicotine at follow-up. Nor did it find that 2.9% of the baseline nonsmokers were currently addicted to nicotine.

LAST：Newest style ego ce5/ego-ce5, ego t ce5 atomizer, ce5 clearomizer |NEXT：A002: D2 510 Rebuildable Dripping Tank Atomizer (2 in 1: drip atomizer & tank atomizer)